Subscribe to Our Mailing List

Looking Back on Harare

The 8th General Assembly of the WCC in Harare, Zimbabwe

The Presence of Orthodox Ecumenists a Disappointment

In the end, the crisis in the Orthodox Church is every bit as deep as the
crisis in the Protestant Churches. It is a crisis of self-awareness, of
responsibility, of consistency between words and deeds, of self-respect, of true
unity, and perhaps above all, of theology.1

I. A Unique Opportunity Lost

We have dealt in other essays with the profound crisis in the World Council
of Churches (WCC), examining the
question of what the Orthodox stand towards the ecumenical movement should
bea stand which is being reassessed in a charged atmosphere at the
pan-Orthodox level. We earlier came to the following conclusions:

The profound crisis in the ecumenical movement and the WCC
has, in essence, uncovered an internal crisis among the
Orthodox ecumenists, a crisis which is focused chiefly on the following
problems:

a lack of unified thinking on matters of ecclesiology and a lack of
unanimity in responding to pastoral issues;

the transformation of the administrations of the official Churches into
bureaucratic bodies that pass themselves off as religious, with a structure and
mentality resembling that of the Vatican;

and the absence of any real pan-Orthodox unity, on account of the heresy
of phyletism and the influence of Western trends in theological education and
spirituality.2

Unfortunately, these observations were fully confirmed yet again at the
Eighth General Assembly of the WCC in
Harare, Zimbabwe (December 3-14, 1998), which, since it marked the first fifty
years in the life of this primary institutional organ of the ecumenical movement
(1948-1998), was truly a unique opportunity for an Orthodox witness.

And the opportunity was indeed unique, because it came
in the wake of the critical stand taken by the Orthodox ecumenists towards the WCC
at the Inter-Orthodox Summit, in Thessaloniki, Greece
(April 29-May 2, 1998), and at the Theological Symposium in Damascus, Syria (May
7-13, 1998),3 which standeven
though it was not entirely satisfactoryhad repercussions among the ranks of
many of the heterodox churches (the Old Catholics, Lutherans, and African
Protestants), who for precisely this reason were waiting with sincere longing
to hear a word from the Orthodox.4

Unfortunately, however, the hope of the West was betrayed for the umpteenth
time, to the judgment and condemnation of the Orthodox ecumenists....

A brief report, for the time being, on certain aspects of the Eighth General
Assembly in Harare will bear out the fairness and accuracy of this observation.

II. We went naked to Harare

A member of the Orthodox delegation, who took part in the Eighth General
Assembly as an adviser to the Church of Greece, sincerely posed the
question, How did we Orthodox go to Harare? And with equally striking
bluntness he responds:

Without the holiness that bears witness to Christ ineffably, without the
personalities that rivet peoples attention, without the unity that binds
together (but, rather, with petty rivalries of a phyletistic or, more often, a
personal kind), without theological arguments, without goals, strategy, or
coördination. We went naked to Harare and our nakedness...was exposed. [See
note 4.]

III. The Orthodox Ecumenists Were Exposed Again and Again

Unprepared and uninformed. The Orthodox were exposed at
Harare when, at one session, it emerged that none of the Orthodox had even
read the latest basic Faith and Order documents.5

What precisely transpired?

Apart from the sessions held in the auditorium, open meetings were also
heldoutside of the official programat padares [the Shona word
for meeting-placeTrans.]; in the framework of these meetings,
more general issues of a theological, moral and social, missionary, and
political kind were further discussed.6

At one of these meetings, in which six Orthodox
delegates participated, it became evident that the work on Scripture and
Tradition done by the WCC Commission
on Faith and Order, which led to a breakthrough at its 4th World-Conference in
1963 in Montreal, was completely unknown to all panelists.7

Likewise, at this padare an Orthodox clergyman admitted that most
of the Orthodox Churches did not really engage in the Apostolic Faith study,
focusing on the Ecumenical Creed of 381, which is very much at the core of
orthodox faith and self-understanding. [See note 7.]

And disappointment was occasioned by the discovery that almost all
Orthodox churches do not even know that there has been such a long-term project
(since Lima, 1982 until now), as can be recognized in the most recent statement
on The Nature and Purpose of the Church. [See note 7.]

A lack of sobriety. The two Patriarchates of Georgia and Bulgaria
were exposed, since, although they had withdrawn from the WCC
for supposedly serious reasons, nowthrough their
observers at Hararethey declared their loyalty, on the one hand, to the
ecumenical ideal and, on the other hand, justified themselves on the grounds
that their decisions to withdraw from the WCC were
prompted by pressure from conservative elements!

A Georgian clergyman, Father Vasili Kobakhidze, revealingly stated that

...the Georgian Orthodox were, are, and always will be your brothers and
sisters in the Lord. Patriarch Ilia and the Orthodox Church of Georgia were
forced to leave the ecumenical movement on account of fanatics and
fundamentalists and in order to avoid an internal schism, but they always pray
for Christian unity.8

In one of his delegations documents, the Bulgarian theologian Ivan
Dimitrov (one of seven Bulgarian observers), expressed sorrow for their
Churchs withdrawal from the WCC,9
saying that the Bulgarian churchs decision to
withdraw from the WCC had
been taken, not out of anti-ecumenical convictions, but under pressure from
the [ultra-conservative breakaway] Old Calendarist church.10

Are these not serious issues? Is it acceptable for two local Churches to
degrade themselves in this way, before the heterodox world, in such an official
forum?

The following observations have been quite correctly made in this regard:

Is it acceptable for an Orthodox Patriarchate to withdraw from the WCC
and for His Beatitude, the Patriarch, to send a message
to the General Assembly, by way of an observer, that he himself always has
been, and is, positively disposed towards the ecumenical movement, but that
both he and the Synod were under pressure from conservative elements? We
either agonize and put off making a decision, or we respect the opinion of the
majority and remain silent, or we give up. Attitudes like you know, Im
not at fault do not sound particularly sober. 11,12

Without preparation or planning. The Orthodox
ecumenists were also exposed at the two joint general meetings with the Non-Chalcedonians
or Monophysites:

The chairman did not know English and had not seen to the provision of a
simultaneous translation. The meetings did not have any daily bulletin, and
had no beginning or ending, and no goals. There was no dialogue, only an
exchange of monologues.12a

Do not pray at all. The Orthodox ecumenists were exposed for
not giving a witness of prayer and prayerful concern for the vision of unity.

No one made provision for the celebration of Orthodox services for the
Orthodox, outside of the official program, on the Assembly grounds, although
the organizers had made times and places available for such services. If we
had love and faith, our knees should have been bleeding from prayer and our
eyes should have been red from tears. This is the word that the Western world
was expecting from Orthodoxy, and not poor imitations of their own
methodologies.13

The Orthodox, who were absent even from the few opportunities for (purely
Orthodox) worship that there were, in all probability confused the
injunction [regarding] not praying with heterodox with [an injunction] not
to pray at all.14

They vied with each other in pride and with disdain. The
Orthodox ecumenists were exposed for not giving a witness marked by an Orthodox
ethos: a witness of love and humility.

Many of the official delegations, and particularly the five Greek Orthodox
ones, vied with each other in pride and with disdain for those who were not
like them.

Because of this it has been quite correctly observed that, God
resisteth the proud is not a saying without application, but it means, on the
contrary, that if one is to teach an Orthodox ethos, he must live and
breathe it.15

A persecution complex. The Orthodox ecumenists were exposed
for their customary ethnic frictions and rivalries.

As long as we Greeks do not shed the persecution complex that we have in
whatever international environment we find ourselves, we will isolate
ourselves and continually weaken our position. No! The other Orthodox are not
plotting every day to topple us from our seats. On the contrary, we undermine
ourselves on our own, when we do not handle our talents as responsible people
and when we forget that we are, first and foremost, members of our Church,
that is, members of Christ, and secondarily members of our nation, which we
ought to serve only to the extent that the saving work of our Church is not
impeded or neglected.16

The Orthodox did not take a joint stand. The Orthodox
ecumenists were exposed for failing to provide a show of unity, whether by a
unified program of action or by a common strategy of protest,17
something which was especially evident in the issue of
participating in the worship services of the Protestants.

What happened in Harare, with regard to participation by the
Orthodox, testifies to what was a markedly uneven reception of the
Thessaloniki Statement,18 the
concluding recommendations of which proposed reduced participation in the Eighth
General Assembly, in such a way as to voice Orthodox dissatisfaction with the
WCC in a united, pan-Orthodox way.19

A divergence of views was already known in Geneva before the Assembly,
because a well-known Orthodox ecumenist had made the revealing statement that
the question (of how the Orthodox should participate) is open; I have the
feeling that each delegation is going [to the Assembly] with its own
interpretation of the Thessaloniki recommendations. 20

On December 3, 1998, the first closed meeting21 between
Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians, or Monophysites, took place in Harare; its most
fundamental issue was the interpretation of the resolutions adopted in
Thessaloniki. At this meeting, two interpretations of this Statement emerged
[see note 21]: a literal one (complete abstention from the scheduled prayer
services of the General Assemblythe position taken by the delegations from
Russia and Greece), and a broader one (participation in prayer services, but
without taking a leading rôlethe position of the remaining
delegations).

What was the result of these diverse interpretations and of
the mixed approaches to Thessaloniki?22 ...The
Orthodox did not take a joint stand on this question until the conclusion of the
Assembly proceedings. 23

In the final analysis, the progressives ignored the inter-Orthodox
agreements and went whole hog; what, one wonders, is their
understanding of inter-Orthodox coöperation and of respect for synodal
procedures?24

In any case, to be precise, all of [the Orthodox], without exception, took
part in the votes, and the overwhelming majority attended the common prayers and
devotions.25

Indeed, all of the Orthodox delegations were present at the worship services
and the special Recommitment Service, and together with the Anglicans and
other Protestants made the following characteristic declaration, among others,
during the concluding commitment: We intend to stay together; we
are restless to grow together in unity.26

IV. Unworthy of Our Calling

This depressing spectacle of the Orthodox delegations at the WCCs
Eighth General Assembly, which certainly entailed anything but an Orthodox
witness, leads us, in fact, to the roots of the profound crisis of the Orthodox
ecumenists.

The Orthodox presence, more generally, and the greater part of the Greeks
in attendance, more specifically,27 caused
disappointment even to the Orthodox ecumenists: We left with
heads bowed. When we lose the opportunities that are given to us, we prove
unworthy of our calling. [See note 27]

The Harare Assembly, exactly fifty years after the founding of the WCC,
demonstrated, in essence, that

In the end, the crisis in the Orthodox Church is every
bit as deep as the crisis in the Protestant Churches. It is a crisis of
self-awareness, of responsibility, of consistency between words and deeds, of
self-respect, of true unity, and perhaps above all, of theology. 28

V. Are the Orthodox threatened and marginalized?

The Seventh General Assembly in Canberra (February 7-20, 1991) brought the
very profound crisis of the WCC forcefully
into the limelight; since then, the Orthodox ecumenists have not ceased to
express their anxieties over the structure of the Council, the ordination of
women, the homosexual movement, religious syncretism, etc.

Now, however, the Eighth General Assembly in Harare has
highlighted with particular emphasis the equally profound crisis of the Orthodox
ecumenists, who, unfortunately, are entirely lacking in critical self-awareness
and who put all of the blame for their situation on the WCC,
believing, as they do, that unless this situation [within the Council] is
remedied, the Orthodox will always feel themselves threatened and marginalized.29

But this gives rise to another crucial question: When will the situation
of the Orthodox ecumenists be remedied? If the Orthodox ecumenists are
incapable of giving a unified and credible Orthodox witness, how can they earn
respect and, consequently, heal the Geneva-based Council? Since they are
themselves unhealed, how can they feel secure when they are at its
epicenter?

Tensions within the WCC have
always been high30 and will
continue to be high, no matter what structural changes are proposed and
undertaken, sinceto express ourselves in a different way, by the best
scenario, if there were any likelihood of this man-made religious association in
Geneva being healed, it would presuppose that the Orthodox ecumenists had
themselves been healed.

The demands that are made by the Orthodox ecumenists for changes in the
Council are quite unrealistic, given that they themselves, as organic members
of the WCC, come to its General
Assembly naked: without holiness, without personalities, without unity, without
theology, without goals, andof coursewithout the Grace of our Lord and
without the blessing of our Holy Fathers, since they walk down the avenue of
ecumenism, contrary to every ecclesiastical tradition, both written and
unwritten.31

Now, is it possible for the Orthodox ecumenists, without being clad in
the comely garment of Holy Tradition, but being literally naked, to
reiterate the words of the Holy Fathers of the Seventh Holy cumenical Synod:
We are children of obedience, and we glory in the countenance of our mother,
the Tradition of the Catholic Church?32

VI. The Special Commission

On the basis of the proposals made in the first Report of the General
Committee, which studied the question of Orthodox participation in the WCC
in detail, the plenary session of the General Assembly
endorsed the recommendation of the Special Commission on Orthodox
Participation in the WCC, and the
Commission was granted a period of three years in which to carry out its work.33

The Orthodox ecumenists themselves are posing serious
questions regarding this issue, which we had also raised prior to the Assembly
and to which we have given an appropriate response; these questions, by another
route, clearly underscore, once again, the profound crisis that exists in the
Orthodox wing of the WCC. These are
the questions that the Orthodox ecumenists are asking:

Why did we Orthodox wake up so late and why did the Thessaloniki
Summit not meet at the start of 1997, so that there would be time for the
Commission to be formed, to deliberate, and to hammer out proposals for
submission to the General Assembly?34

The instructions which it [the
aforementioned CommissionTrans.] has now received, and which the
Orthodox have gladly accepted, are that it should work for at least three
years (!) and submit proposals to the next General Assembly in seven years
time; but, if the Orthodox had such a great problem, as the Thessaloniki
document indicates, why is it that, for so many years, they allowed matters to
go as far as they have without any strong protest? And how is it that they are
now satisfied with such a long-term solution? [See note 34.]

And why did an additional Orthodox consultation not take place between
Thessaloniki and Harare that could have submitted a document or testimony at
Harare, making it clear what we were demanding and serving as a basis for the
work of the Special Commission? [see note 34.]

How will the Orthodox now go to the Commission? Will we first
deliberate together and, at long last, clearly formulate our concrete demands?
Or will we again lay ourselves open? [See note 34.]

VII. The battle was fierce....

It was very evident at Harare that the agenda of the Orthodox ecumenists in
Geneva is to continue shifting the center of gravity of the problems that
concern all Orthodox more generally towards the ecumenical movement itself, and
thus to confine themselves merely to salvaging the WCC.

In connection with this, the findings of the delegation from the Church of
Greece at Harare are significant:

For a variety of reasons, the theological character of the WCChas been undermined and transformed, for the most part, into
an enfeebled religious, and, to a greater extent, political and social
organization which professes to be disposed towards some kind of spirituality,
whereas it is strongly inclined towards syncretism, because it attempts to
form its spirituality on a basis or amalgam of bizarre ideas and varied
notions.35

The future of the WCC can
be salvaged only if this organization returns to and recovers its historical
roots, from which it began its historical journey. [See
note 35.]

It is necessary that the Charter and the character of the WCC
be altered and that this organization become more
ecclesiastical and not a political, social, and economic organization. [See
note 35.]

It should be noted, while we are on the subject of this truly
strange and baffling Report by the leader of the Greek delegation, which
literally does not hold water, that if the WCC is
to return to and recover its historical roots, it must return to its
founding Assembly (Amsterdam, August 22-September 4, 1948), at which the first
General Secretary, Dr. Vissert Hooft, made the following statements, among
others: Our pluralism [in the WCC]
is immoral in the deepest sense..., and consequently, our Council is an
emergency solution, a stage on the road, and a fellowship.36

The struggle of the ecumenists to salvage the Geneva-based Council has
led them to a grave divergence of opinions:

On the one hand, the conservatives propose the remedy of
returning to the founding roots of the Council, that is, a recovery of its
identity as a corporate organization;35

On the other hand, the progressives propose a
complete replacement of the present structure of the WCC and
the establishment of a Forum of Christian Churches and Ecumenical
Organizations,36a or a forum
with no fixed membership and without responsibilities and obligations for
those taking part in it.37

And a third solution, finally, envisions the formation of
the WCC into a brotherhood, in which
the member-churches coöperate, hold theological conferences, provide
a common witness, and have a common understanding of what the Church is.38

In any case, the endeavor to save the WCC and
to devise acceptable forms of participation in it has embroiled the Orthodox
ecumenists in time-consuming and interminable proceedings, which have, as a
result, obscured the vision of substantially promoting Christian unity by means
of a truly charismatic Orthodox witness.

Among other indications of the obfuscation of this vision, of
the prevailing situation within the Geneva-based Council, and, as well, of the
climate of coöperation by the member-churches for a common witness,
was the issue of eucharistic practice at Harare.

The question of eucharistic practice was the subject
of several long and painful debates in the Central Committee [before the
Assembly], in connection with plans for worship at the Harare assembly. In the
end, it was agreed that an ecumenical eucharistic service would not be part of
the assembly program (as was the case at previous assemblies). 39

Commenting on this decision, an Orthodox theologian from America, Paul
Meyendorff, emphasized that this was a victory for us, but the battle was
fierce.40

We instinctively pose our final question: Was this fierce
battle, perhaps, in the end, the answer that clarifies the problem of
the brotherhood that has been or is experienced, which was set forth by
the Church of Constantinople in 1995?

At that time the Patriarchate said: After fifty years of fruitful
coöperation within the WCC, its
members ought to clarify the meaning and the extent of the brotherhood which
they experience in the WCC....41

VIII. The Orthodox Ecumenists Should Leave the WCC

In concluding our critique, we address ourselves in a brotherly spirit to the
Orthodox members of the WCC, and we
yet once more remind them of their duty:

If they want to preserve their Orthodox identity, and if they are concerned
about their salvation and that of their heterodox colleagues, they ought to
leave the WCC and cease to be
members of a man-made, worldly religious association, because, in
ecclesiological and soteriological terms, it is impossible and inconceivable for
Orthodoxy to be a member of something, while at the same time
calling on everyone to participate in her Catholicity and wholenessto become
members of her Body, members of the Body of Christ, which is the Orthodox
Church.42

12. The ecumenists in the Phanar, referring to Emmanuel
Koumbarelis opinion, and supposedly attempting to demonstrate the tragedy
of the position which the leaders of some of them [the Orthodox Churches] have
reached, who groan under the captivity of extreme fundamentalist groups, which
threaten them with schism, maintain that it is unfair for anyone to
condemn Orthodox Church leaderssuch as Patriarch Ilia of Georgiafor
allegedly not being sober, because he endeavored, through the historic and
lively intervention of the Priest whom he sent, Vasili Kobakhidze, to take the
edge off the negative impression created by his failure to send an official
delegation (see Deacon Elpidophoros Lambryniades, "He
Orthodoxia sto P.S.E. meta to Charare" ["Orthodoxy in the WCC
after Harare"], Synaxe, No. 70 [April-June 1999], p. 109).

18. Peter Bouteneff, The Orthodox at the Harare Assembly,
English translation from the Internet French original in Service Orthodoxe de
Presse (March 1999). In the communiqué of the Inter-Orthodox Summit in
Thessaloniki (April 29-May 2, 1998), the following provisions were made: The
Orthodox conferees [at Harare] will not participate in ecumenical services,
common prayers, worship, or other religious ceremonies during the Assembly;
in general, the Orthodox will not take part in the voting procedures, except
in special cases that pertain to the Orthodox and with the prior agreement of
all the Orthodox [ 13.4, 6] (see Enimnerosis,14-1998/5,
p. 5). 19. Idem, The Orthodox at the Harare Assembly.

21. Tsironis, "P.S. ton E.," pp. 100b-101a.
Also see the website of the Church of Greece: Meeting of the Canonical
Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches at the WCC, Harare Assembly (3
December 1998).

25. Lambryniades, "He Orthodoxia sto P.S.E. meta to
Charare," p. 111. It should be noted that
Deacon Father Elpidophoros, obviously refuting the criticisms of Emmanuel
Koumbarelis, offers the following justification: Taking all of these points
into consideration [i.e., the positive atmosphere for the Orthodox at Harare],
the majority of the Orthodox delegations correctly understood that the
statements regarding the implementation of those two
much-discussed resolutions of the Thessaloniki Summit were no longer relevant,
since it was already clearly stated in the resolutions that they would only be
put into effect if the Orthodox demands were not accepted (see point 13d of the
resolutions).

This opinion, however, is misleading, because the text
of the communiqué, which we cited above verbatim (footnote 18), makes
absolutely no provision for any annulment of the resolutions (no such thing
is stated in them, and certainly not clearly); but even if a
provision had been made for the non-implementation of these prohibitions, this
would have taken effect only if the Orthodox demands were accepted; but these
demands are to be discussed for the next three years by the joint Special
Commission, which has yet to be established and which will propose changes in
the WCCs constitution at the Ninth General Assembly in 2005!

26. Jerry Van Marter, Churches recommit themselves to the
WCC at worship celebration, ENI News Service (December 13, 1998)
[Internet document]; see also the press release of the Eighth General Assembly
of the WCC, No. 57 (December 15, 1998): Together, under the cross in
Africa, eighth Assembly comes to a close [Internet document].

27. Koumbarelis, "Skepseis",
pp. 95 and 97.

28. Ibid., p. 97.

29. Website of the Church of Greece: Deliberative Plenary:
Moderators Report, Section 56 (4 December 1998) [this is the opinion of
the President of the Central Committee of the WCC, the Armenian Catholicos of
Cilicia (Lebanon), Aram Keshishian].